The American Dream is part of the institution of America. How would we enable young Americans to progress toward the American Dream?

Two weeks ago, we considered steps conservatives could take to preserve the American Dream. They involved low government and business-first approaches to address wages and home ownership.

In addition to conserving the vision, we need to enable Americans the ability to realize it. Americans born from any walk of life should be able to decide their own potential.

Let’s have a quick refresher about Progressives and the American Dream.

Progressives view government as an intermediary between businesses and the public. They advocate for regulations and policies that they believe protect the greater interest.

Progressives seek:

* Equality of Opportunity. Progressives intend to create conditions where everyone has a fair chance to succeed. They strive to address systemic inequalities in education, healthcare, and employment.

* Social Justice. A vital element of the progressive vision is the pursuit of social justice. They advocate for the rights and welfare of marginalized and disadvantaged groups.

* Economic Reform. Progressives believe the government should regulate the economy to ensure fair outcomes.

January 11, 1944. President Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) delivered the year’s State of the Union address to Congress. America was fighting in the Pacific and European theaters in World War II. Few American households remained untouched by military service or homefront support. Americans looked forward to getting their sons home.

Against this backdrop, FDR called for a second Bill of Rights for all Americans. He aimed to extend the promise of the American Dream to every citizen.

In the address, FDR called for several expanded rights for Americans. Among them, he included:

* “The right to earn enough to provide adequate food, clothing, and recreation…”

* “The right of every family to a decent home…”

Before we move on, we need some common understanding of FDR’s statements. We need to think more to clarify — what is a right?

The Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University studies rights. In the Journal of Ethics - Volume 3, Winter 1990, Claire Andre and Manuel Velasquez state that:

A right is a "justified claim" on others. For example, if I have a right to freedom, then I have a justified claim to be left alone by others. Turned around, I can say that others have a responsibility to leave me alone. If I have a right to an education, then I have a justified claim to be provided with an education by society.

A great example that highlights negative and positive rights in the same paragraph.

A negative right protects individual liberty. In the example above, a negative right is a justified claim to be left alone. Our right to free speech is a negative right. Our speech is protected from the government. You can’t be jailed for speaking against the government. The government takes no action to give us free speech. A negative right requires others to do nothing to ensure your rights.

In contrast, a positive right requires someone to take action to provide us with the right. There are two ways to look at positive rights.

The example above highlights the first way to look at positive rights. It identifies a right to education as an entitlement. If we have a right to education, Americans are responsible for providing other Americans with education.

We should not look at rights as entitlements. This way of looking at positive rights is divisive. Considering positive rights this way means you can choose to do nothing and still be given rights. Believing you have a right to education as an entitlement implies that your fellow Americans have a responsibility to give you an education.

However, the second way of looking at positive rights is helpful. We must consider that no one has a right to anything they aren’t willing to work for.

The second way to view positive rights is as an obligation for Americans. Not for the rights themselves but for societal conditions, stated as:

We must create an environment that empowers our fellow citizens. They must be able to actively pursue and attain their own rights.

Americans have no right to education. But Americans have a right to rules that enable them to pursue their education.

Americans have no right to healthcare. But Americans have a right to access to healthcare. They also have a right to make their own healthcare decisions.

And back to FDR’s points:

Americans have no right to free resources for food, clothing, and recreation. But Americans and their families have a right to wages above the poverty level.

Americans have no right to decent housing. But Americans have a right to rules that support home ownership for those who qualify. And at a level attainable in the current market.

Progressives view the government as a mediator. It ensures fairness and addresses systemic disparities. They emphasize equality of opportunity, social justice, and economic reform.

In this light, we need to consider progressives and the American Dream.

Two weeks ago, we considered conservative approaches to preserve the American Dream. They had low government involvement. They prioritized business-first perspectives to address wages and home ownership.

Now, we consider progressive approaches. These will enable Americans to make progress toward the American Dream. We will address the same areas—wages and home ownership.

Progressives and Wages

Poverty is a drain on society. Reducing poverty leads to a healthier workforce. It also leads to a better educated one. It reduces crime rates and spurs economic growth. According to US Census Bureau data published in 2021, a little more than 37 million Americans live in poverty.

Employers who pay low wages burden the American taxpayer. They force the taxpayer to care for others through social welfare programs. The American taxpayer subsidizes these businesses. They do this by paying dollars that the companies should pay themselves.

Chief Justice Charles E. Hughes wrote the majority opinion for the US Supreme Court case West Coast Hotel v. Parrish in 1937. Hughes noted a similar problem in the challenge to a minimum wage. He said, "What these workers lose in wages, the taxpayers are called upon to pay. The bare cost of living must be met .... The community is not bound to provide what is in effect a subsidy for unconscionable employers.”

A tool to address poverty for working Americans is to raise the minimum wage above the poverty level. In Minimum Wages and the Distribution of Family Incomes, published in the American Economic Journal in 2019, Dr. Arindrajit Dube found:

There is robust evidence that minimum wage increases over the past 30 years have boosted pretax-and-transfer incomes at the bottom of the income distribution.

And further found that after raising minimum wages:

Policies like cash transfers, SNAP, and tax credits are better targeted to raise incomes for those at the very bottom of the income distribution.

There are challenges with addressing poverty using the minimum wage as a tool. Some young Americans work part-time jobs, and their pay rate is set at the minimum wage. Raising the minimum wage for part-time workers could threaten their job opportunities. What’s more, the cost of living varies broadly across the country. A Federal standard for a minimum wage is inappropriate. Finally, the minimum wage lacks political consensus.

Instead of raising the static minimum wage, we could address the issue with legislation such as this:

Employers shall pay full-time wages representing a rate no less than the poverty level plus 50%, assuming the worker and three dependents, for that locality.

This proposed legislation addresses the difference between full-time and part-time workers. It would set a minimum rate of full-time worker pay high enough to lift their family above the poverty level. And because the rate of pay is based on locality, it would take cost of living differences into account. Finally, it addresses the need for more political consensus by identifying a rate of pay based on the poverty level rather than a static number. You can read more about this idea here:

In addition to raising wages, we need to set conditions enabling more young Americans to buy starter homes.

Progressives and Housing

Home ownership is the decisive element of generational financial stability. To strengthen economic security for young Americans, we need to address home ownership.

We need to increase the supply of starter homes. In Conserving the American Dream, we noted that the housing supply has not kept up with population growth. Since 1970, the supply of housing has been going down. We need a market-based solution to increase supply.

On January 26, 2024, the Wall Street Journal published two articles detailing challenges young Americans face when buying a starter home. As a result of these challenges, the age of first-time buyers is increasing. Parental assistance to children for help with a downpayment is more common. In short, the starter home market is unaffordable for young Americans.

We need to increase the supply of housing for first-time homebuyers. And we need to set conditions to help young Americans buy starter homes.

Young Americans need to be able to secure their financial future early in adulthood. Our young generations need the ability to purchase their first home at a low interest rate.

We need legislation supporting a first-time homebuyer benefit of a 3% interest rate. We need to combine this interest rate with a US Department of Housing and Urban Development loan, which requires a 3.5% down payment.

After their one-time use, if a family wants to purchase a more expensive home, that’s their decision. If they want to own the asset, they own the risk and higher interest rate that comes with the asset. This plan also needs to disqualify private equity or investment firms. We need to specify single-family homes, single-unit duplexes, apartments, etc.

You can read the details here:

All Americans should be able to decide their own potential. They must be able to achieve this through effort and dedication. It doesn't matter the station of their birth.

Americans don't have the right to free resources for food, clothing, and recreation. But Americans and their families have a right to wages above the poverty level.

Americans have no right to decent housing. But Americans have a right to rules that support home ownership for those who qualify. And at a level attainable in the current market.

We can use progressive approaches to achieve our goal in at least two areas. We need to increase wages. And we need to set conditions enabling favorable terms for first-time homebuyers.

In short, we must enable young Americans to progress toward the American Dream.

May God bless the United States of America.

Get full access to I Believe at joelkdouglas.substack.com/subscribe